|
|
|
|
|
by SomeCallMeTim
5246 days ago
|
|
What bugs me about Settlers isn't that it's got too much luck, it's that I can pretty much tell who is going to win (or at least one of two) based on the initial settlement placement. Or at least who's going to lose. And it's pretty much completely no fun to play a game where the result is preordained that you'll lose. Speaking of settlement placement: There aren't enough rolls in a game of Catan for the distribution of rolls to come out as you'd expect them. I've played a game where more 12s were rolled than 6s (though OMG were there a lot of 8s). It's not bad dice -- it's just the normal result of a "random" distribution when you're not generating that many results. So a HUGE part of the strategy that the article misses is to maximize your DISTRIBUTION of numbers. I don't care if there's an 8/9/10 combo available for your second settlement; if you already have 8 & 9, you're much better off with a 3/4/5 combo (assuming you have none of those). Otherwise you're stuck with a feast or famine situation; sure you might be lucky, but you might instead be resource-starved for large parts of the game. I actually picked up a "Deck of Dice" [1] to use with Catan, which is 36 cards that have a regular distribution of results of rolling two dice, but haven't given it a try yet to see if it makes Catan feel different. It seems like it might play a lot different; I really should give that a try... :) [1] http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/5460/the-deck-of-dice |
|
Consider a game where one player gets two items for every roll above 7, another two items for every roll below 7, and a third one item for every roll that is not 7. With any not perfectly even distribution of rolls, one of the first two players will have the highest production, and the other of the two the lowest. There is no set of throws that will give the last player the most produce.